CHAIR’S SUMMARY
Eighth Regional Seminar on Good Governancefor Southeast Asian Countries
Kuala Lumpur, 18 – 20 November 2014

General1.

The Eighth Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries,
co-hosted by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and the United
Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatmentof Offenders (UNAFEI) was held at Hotel Istana in Kuala Lumpur from 18th to20th November 2014.

2.

Officials and experts from the following jurisdictions attended the seminar: Brunei
Darussalam, the Kingdom of Cambodia, the Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region, the Republic of Indonesia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Lao People’s
Democratic Republic, Malaysia, the Union of Myanmar, the Republic of thePhilippines, the Republic of Singapore, the Kingdom of Thailand and the Socialist
Republic of Viet Nam.
Opening Ceremony

3.

Mr. Yamashita, Terutoshi, Director of UNAFEI and the Honourable Datuk Hj.
Mustafar bin Hj. Ali, Deputy Chief Commissioner of the MACC, delivered opening
speeches, both expressing their gratitude to the participants for their attendance andstressing the importance of good governance and the rule of law. Mr. Kodama,
Yoshinori, Deputy Chief of Mission of the Embassy of Japan in Malaysia,
welcomed the participants and expressed his thanks to UNAFEI, the MACC and
MACA for organizing this Seminar. He noted that Japan will continue to support
collective efforts to address anti-corruption efforts and other issues throughout
Southeast Asia.
Keynote Addresses and Lectures by Experts

4.

Mr. Taro Morinaga, Deputy Director of UNAFEI, delivered the keynote address.
Besides encouraging participants to intensively discuss best practices in thecriminal justice response to corruption, he also stressed the importance ofprevention based on deep analysis of the causes of corruption in the indigenous
context. He further asked the participants to share information with each other inorder to facilitate international cooperation with respect to the investigation ofcorruption.

5.

The first expert’s lecture was given by Mr. Lee, Jin Soo, Senior Prosecutor of theSeoul Central District Prosecutors' Office. Mr. Lee introduced the experiences of
Korean authorities in combating corruption. First, he briefly explained the Korean1criminal justice system, which basically has a civil law tradition but also hassignificant influence from the common law system. Then he went on to talk about
the structural relationship between the prosecutors and police force, showing thesupremacy of the prosecution with regard to criminal investigation. According to
Mr. Lee, Korea has been making continuous efforts in order to improve its
investigation and prosecution systems to respond to the high expectations of thegeneral public, which is not only becoming more and more aware of the detrimental
effects of corruption but also very particular about the fairness and politicalimpartiality of the prosecutors’ investigations. As to effective investigation, hestressed the importance of digital evidence and the way to handle it.
6.

Ms. Chan Shook Man, Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions,
Prosecution Division, Department of Justice of Hong Kong, delivered the second
expert’s lecture. After briefly explaining the common law style criminal justicesystem of Hong Kong, she described in detail the way trial prosecutors in Hong
Kong work. Although the Hong Kong prosecutors do not have the authority toinvestigate criminal cases, including corruption cases, by themselves, they play adecisive role in combating corruption since they are vested with prosecutorial
discretion, which means that they decide whether or not to bring a specific case to
the court. In exercising this significant power, she told us that Hong Kongprosecutors are required to be completely fair and impartial, and are also required tofunction as a watchdog to ensure fair investigation. Further, she explained indetail the need for careful trial preparation, including the drafting of charges,
presentation of witnesses, presentation and admissibility of documentary evidence,
the use of expert witnesses, the duty of disclosure, and the use of accomplice
witnesses and confessions.
Discussion Summary

7.

The Current Situation of Corruption
Although the characteristics and gravity differ from country to country, corruption
is seen in every jurisdiction as a phenomenon quite detrimental to society,undermining democracy and the rule of law. The existence of special legislationand special law enforcement agencies designed to combat corruption in every
jurisdiction is, ironically, proof that corruption is a major problem in all countries
and regions. Some states are plagued with widespread corrupt activities in almost
all sectors of society, while in others, large-scale crimes of corruption become more
and more sophisticated and organized, making them harder to detect. In somejurisdictions, grand corruption is a huge problem hindering sound development,
while in others petty corruption, or small-scale bribery, takes place frequently andfrustrates citizens’ daily lives. Some countries are facing the worst type where
corruption almost becomes a common habit or culture—“systemic corruption”. To
make matters worse, corruption is not something of a domestic character anymore.
Together with the rapid globalization of economies and trade, many crimes ofcorruption today are becoming international and more often than not involve
foreign elements. Corruption today is definitely borderless. In addition, we must notunderestimate the negative impact on society which corruption in the private sector2can cause. The general public and the market are paying more and more attention towhat efforts a country is exerting in order to eliminate private sector corruption.
8.

Counter-Corruption Laws and Law Enforcement Agencies
A majority of countries represented at this forum have special laws and law
enforcement agencies or prosecution authorities designed to combat and eliminate
corrupt activities.
One prestigious example would be Singapore with its Corrupt Practices
Investigation Bureau (CPIB). The CPIB was established in 1952 as an independent
organization exclusively dealing with the enforcement of anti-corruption laws. The
CPIB has been quite successful with its active operation under the “Zero-Tolerance”
policy, making full use of effective laws, such as the Prevention of Corruption Act
as well as a number of relevant statutes.
Hong Kong surely is another example of success. The expert from Hong Kong told
us that the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), established in
1974, is engaged in vigorous investigation activities and brings high-profile cases tothe prosecutors. Once the prosecutors receive cases from the ICAC, they make fulluse of their professional skills in order to bring corrupt offenders to justice while
strictly maintaining fairness and impartiality.
The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) is making tremendous
efforts to pursue high-profile cases, learning from bitter experiences in the past andin collaboration not only with domestic organizations but also with their regionalcounterparts. Something remarkable about Malaysia is that the MACC is supportedby the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Academy (MACA), which is the training academy
for anti-corruption officials and which is rarely seen in other jurisdictions.
Another example of a sole, independent authority would be the Anti-Corruption
Bureau of Brunei Darussalam. Based on the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1981,
it has been working closely together with the Attorney General’s Chambers, dealing
with every kind of corruption varying from petty to grand corruption as well asother complex white-collar and financial crimes. Although the Brunei delegates
explained the numerous challenges they are facing, the strong commitment towards
eliminating corruption is clear.
The KPK of Indonesia has emerged with strong powers of investigation ofcorruption. It has developed procedures for investigation and prosecution
specifically designed to tackle complicated corruption cases, including the use of
wiretapping and witness protection programmes. It is quite noteworthy thatIndonesia has an obstruction of justice crime specifically designed to protect theinvestigative ability of the KPK—the crime of “hindering KPK process”. On theother hand, the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) noted the challenge of
pursuing corruption cases against high-ranking officials without first obtaining theapproval of the President of Indonesia. Further, the OAG is unable to conduct
3

wiretapping in corruption cases. Interestingly, the KPK’s investigations are notlimited by either of the restrictions faced by the OAG.
Myanmar’s new system is now taking offperforming well with the recently enacted
Anti-Corruption Act of 2013. Myanmar has designed a rather heavy-duty scheme ofcounter-corruption activities, having the Union Attorney General’s Office and theAnti-Corruption Commission with its two internal organizations—the Investigation
Board and the Preliminary Scrutiny Board.
Thailand has a multi-layered system with multiple actors, each playing theirrespective roles: the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) and the Public
Sector Anti-Corruption Commission as well as the Office of the Attorney General.
The Thai delegates told us about the difficulties inherent in the multi-layered
system which have to be overcome by close collaboration and cooperation between
those agencies.
The Royal Cambodian Government, strongly committed to fighting corruption,
established the Anti-Corruption Unit (ACU) to investigate all forms of corruption
cases. Based on the Anti-Corruption Law enacted in 2010, the ACU is vested withpowers that the ordinary judicial police do not have. It can investigate corruption
crimes independently without the approval of prosecutors, and it is allowed toutilize modern investigative techniques such as eavesdropping and wiretapping.
A unique system has developed in the Philippines. There, the Office of the
Ombudsman is a special body mandated by the constitution to investigate andprosecute corrupt activities. Although the field investigators of the Office of the
Ombudsman seem to have faced various challenges and difficulties, their efforts
and success in the investigation of the “Pork Barrel” scandal that we heard from thePhilippines’ participants is highly commendable and something that the involved
investigators should be proud of.
In contrast to those countries which have established independent special agencies
under special laws, there are countries which chose a different way—to deal withcorruption within the conventional framework of the criminal justice system.
A typical example may be Japan, which does not have any comprehensive
anti-corruption law or any independent, special organization handling corruption
exclusively. Still, the relevant provisions of the Penal Code and various
administrative laws seem to be working well. As to investigation and prosecution,
the white-collar crime investigation units of the prosecutors’ offices have so far
gained fair success.
The activities of the Korean prosecution, based on its strong investigative powerand highly developed skills, explains why in Korea there is less need of a special
anti-corruption apparatus. Led and supported by the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office,having a special division dealing with crimes of corruption, the District Prosecutors’
4Offices engage in proactive investigation and prosecution.
Viet Nam does not have special investigation agencies either. Depending on thenature of the specific crimes, authority to investigate is shared between the police
and the procuracy investigators. Participants from Viet Nam stressed the need of an
independent, fully authorized body for the sake of combating the serious situationof corruption in their country.
Lao PDR is in a similar situation with Viet Nam, although the investigation ofcorruption cases is not handled by the prosecutors. Corruption investigations are
conducted by the State Inspection Authority, which was established for the purposeof dealing with compliance with the law by all government officials.
9.

Valuable Examples of Investigation, Prosecution, Adjudication and International
Cooperation
Interesting and inspiring experiences of real cases were presented from each of ourparticipants.
a) Investigation
The “Pork Barrel” scandal introduced by the participants from the Philippines
showed a large-scale, serious case of public fund misuse in which the field
investigators have had a tremendously hard time bringing the offenders to justice.
This case reminded us that it is not only the legal system or the law enforcement
agencies’ skills that count. The investigators of this case faced problems ofilliteracy, language barriers, lifestyles or health conditions of the involved people
who were potential witnesses. The possibility of such practical drawbacks exists inother jurisdictions as well, so it is quite important that, when designing a system ora capacity-building scheme, these sorts of issues are taken into account.
Singapore’s example, the Wilson Raj Perumal match-fixing case, was surely asuccessful investigation involving transnational elements. We thank theSingaporean participant for bringing up a quite contemporary issue—corruption in
the world of sports—which seems to be a major problem everywhere and is
drawing much public attention. Hearing about this case, we once again learned how“international” organized crime can be, and how crucial international cooperation in
the field of criminal justice is. Also, we were reminded of the importance offollowing the money trail as well as looking for forensic evidence, especially theskills of the labs handling electronic data analysis. The case further advised us to be
mindful and not to underestimate the impact that the social media may have on ahigh-profile case.
Our participant from Viet Nam also told us about the important but difficult issue ofinternational investigation, citing the case of Mr. Duong Chi Dung. We imagine
that Vietnamese authorities must have experienced great frustration while chasing
Mr. Dung in Cambodia and looking for evidence in Russia. But it looks like itworked. Further, Mr. Dung’s case reminded us of the annoying reality that persons
5

in influential positions can hinder detection and investigation of crimes—Mr. Dung
had repeatedly broken the law for a period of seven years, with the help of his
acquaintances in the Ministry of Public Security and his own policeman–brother.
Personal and family relationships outweighing the law is, in fact, a phenomenoncommonly seen in the Asian region; of course the bond among family members andfriends is admirable, but once crime is involved, we may have to think twice.
b) Prosecution
The “Mr. DS”-simulator-procurement case introduced by the Indonesian participantfrom the KPK was very much interesting since it raised the issue of offenders
challenging the legitimacy of prosecutorial acts, trying to find loopholes in the law.
It is indeed well perceivable that a desperate defendant, with the help of counsel,
may try to get away with the committed offence, or at least try to somehow keep
the assets gained by criminal activities, taking advantage of legal technicalities.
Investigators and prosecutors have to be prepared to handle such allegations.
The Thai Auditor General’s misuse of state funds by way of fabricating seminars
and the corruption in the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration involving
procurement of fire trucks and fire boats must have been big scandals. The
participants from Thailand, by introducing these cases, suggested that at theprosecution stage, there is much need of a careful selection of defendants based on
multi-angle analysis of available evidence and precise interpretation of applicablelaws as well as thorough discussion between the investigators and prosecutors.
Indeed, the relationship between the investigators and the prosecutors is always acrucial issue. There is no doubt that good communication between them is anindispensable element when handling complicated cases such as grand corruption.
c) Adjudication
Brunei Darussalam experienced several problems in the course of prosecution andtrial of a diesel smuggling case which seems to have been a shock to Brunei’s
customs service with a large number of customs officials involved. Brunei’s
participant drew our attention to two very technical but important issues at the trial
stage—whether to try the defendants together or separately—and the trial schedule
affected by the existence of a foreign witness. Also, Brunei raised the issue of how
to persuade a witness to testify when he/she expresses concern about his/her safety,
and to what extent the authorities can secure his/her protection—the witness
protection issue which is something rather crucial, especially in cases involving
accusations against senior public officials or persons having connections withorganized crime.
The participants from Myanmar shared an example that would be a difficult
decision for any legal professional in similar cases—the case U Ganaysin v. theUnion. There are indeed bribe givers who suddenly betray their counterparts andstart accusing them once they feel that the bribe taker does not do what they wanted
them to do. How should investigators, prosecutors and judges respond to suchsituations? Is it really appropriate to acquit the bribe taker by saying that the bribe
6

giver is unreliable as a witness just because he is the one who gave the bribe andlater dared to shift all the responsibility to his counterpart? The answer may differ
from country to country and may require us to revisit the public perception of what
is just and fair.
d) International Cooperation
In a case shared by the Brunei Darussalam delegation, a contractor for Brunei Shell
Petroleum had, over a period of almost 10 years, submitted false claims in theamount of $18 million for chemicals that were claimed to have been supplied toBrunei Shell. Investigation revealed that none of the chemicals were supplied.
The contractor bribed 22 Shell officials in the process in order to enable thepayment of his claims. The investigation into the Brunei Shell Petroleum case had
been a challenging one. The contractor fled Brunei to Malaysia during theinvestigation. Prior to that, the contractor had taken some of the money out of thecountry and deposited it into a bank in Singapore. The investigation was successful
because of the close networking and cooperation between the anti-corruption
agencies of Brunei, the CPIB of Singapore and the MACC in Malaysia. The
agencies assisted in the arrest of the contractor in Malaysia, which eventually led tothe contractor being charged and convicted. The CPIB Singapore assisted to freeze
the contractor’s assets in Singapore, and the proceeds of crime in the amount ofalmost $1 million was able to be recovered and repatriated to Brunei Darussalam.
This case shows the importance of close inter-jurisdictional cooperation between
anti-corruption agencies in spite of the formal MLA provisions established underinternational law.
10. Lessons Learneda) Establishment of an independent anti-corruption body can be a powerful tool for
combating corruption. Still, the conventional criminal justice institutions can alsoachieve good results.
b) As mentioned by the delegation from the Philippines, inter-agency
cooperation—both inside and outside of the criminal justice system—is crucial for theeffective and speedy investigation of corruption cases.
c) Exhaustive investigation including the utilization of modern techniques ofinvestigation and forensic evidence is indispensable. The case study referenced by the
Malaysian delegation was a lesson in the need for specialized investigators andprosecutors in the field of financial crimes and the need to anticipate and be prepared
to respond to the high level of proof that courts will require.
d) Prosecutors must be fully equipped to counter legal ambiguity, loopholes andtechnicalities that will be raised by defendants which can impair the realization ofsubstantial justice.
e) Corruption is no longer domestic; international cooperation at all levels of criminal7

justice is crucial. We must understand each other’s systems and find solutions toremove obstacles to cooperative activities.
f) Help and support from the public is quite important in the course of investigationand prosecution. Moreover, public trust and support are crucial factors for theoperation and existence of anti-corruption bodies.

20 NOVEMBER 2014
KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA

8